Is Alex Trebek starting to lose it?

[clemon79]

Well put. Why not go out after another big number?

Because that particular round number has significance as it is traditionally the amount of time that qualifies one for a full pension.

[PYLdude]

Well put. Why not go out after another big number?

Because that particular round number has significance as it is traditionally the amount of time that qualifies one for a full pension.

That was a rhetorical question.

[TLEberle]

Well put. Why not go out after another big number?

Because that particular round number has significance as it is traditionally the amount of time that qualifies one for a full pension.

That was a rhetorical question.

Coulda fooled me.

[Bryce L.]

Here's my personal rule of thumb: If it is on the cover of the Enquirer, I automatically write it off as being patently untrue.

[clemon79]

Here's my personal rule of thumb: If it is on the cover of the Enquirer, I automatically write it off as being patently untrue.

Well, it's a shame that you're cutting corners in that way, because they've hit the nail on the head on stories they have broken (c.f. O.J. Simpson's book "If I Did It", Rush Limbaugh's addiction to painkillers, John Edwards' infidelity) more than once.

[Bryce L.]

Here's my personal rule of thumb: If it is on the cover of the Enquirer, I automatically write it off as being patently untrue.

Well, it's a shame that you're cutting corners in that way, because they've hit the nail on the head on stories they have broken (c.f. O.J. Simpson's book "If I Did It", Rush Limbaugh's addiction to painkillers, John Edwards' infidelity) more than once.

I guess I may have to reevaluate that line of thought...

[Unrealtor]

Here's my personal rule of thumb: If it is on the cover of the Enquirer, I automatically write it off as being patently untrue.

Well, it's a shame that you're cutting corners in that way, because they've hit the nail on the head on stories they have broken (c.f. O.J. Simpson's book "If I Did It", Rush Limbaugh's addiction to painkillers, John Edwards' infidelity) more than once.

Yeah. The story reads to me like Tabloid Journalism 101. Take something you can prove (game show host flubs question), add filler (aging game show host with history of heart disease flubs question), turn it into a question so that you can say you didn't actually claim anything that isn't true (Is Alex Trebek losing it?).

[Otm Shank]

Add to it the reliance on an "anonymous source," which, depending on what state you are in, would be shielded from being identified in a court of law. Knowing that, a journalist can shortcut the process to fabricate the source to advance the story.

Hell, there isn't even any verification of the blooper happening in the first place. (Pssst! The evidence is that the gaffe is edited from the show.)

Thus, the tabloider takes a rumor, never calls/e-mails/faxes/tweets/IMs/texts/passengerpigeons anyone for a statement/corroboration/denial, creates a source to speak through, cranks out a story (literally, a story) in less than 10 minutes, and probably has his check direct deposited so that he never has to leave his windowless basement through the whole process.

[Jimmy Owen]

Add to it the reliance on an "anonymous source," which, depending on what state you are in, would be shielded from being identified in a court of law. Knowing that, a journalist can shortcut the process to fabricate the source to advance the story.

Hell, there isn't even any verification of the blooper happening in the first place. (Pssst! The evidence is that the gaffe is edited from the show.)

Thus, the tabloider takes a rumor, never calls/e-mails/faxes/tweets/IMs/texts/passengerpigeons anyone for a statement/corroboration/denial, creates a source to speak through, cranks out a story (literally, a story) in less than 10 minutes, and probably has his check direct deposited so that he never has to leave his windowless basement through the whole process.

That is different from Wikipedia how?

[Kevin Prather]

That is different from Wikipedia how?

People aren't getting paid to write Wikipedia articles, and people aren't paying to read them. 0/10.

[Bryce L.]

That is different from Wikipedia how?

People aren't getting paid to write Wikipedia articles, and people aren't paying to read them. 0/10.

But a lot of the time there is as much truth in a Wikipedia article as there is in a tabloid article... so points to both Jimmy and otmshank, I say!

[clemon79]

But a lot of the time there is as much truth in a Wikipedia article as there is in a tabloid article... so points to both Jimmy and otmshank, I say!

Yes, you certainly do.

/wow

[PYLdude]

That is different from Wikipedia how?

People aren't getting paid to write Wikipedia articles, and people aren't paying to read them. 0/10.

But a lot of the time there is as much truth in a Wikipedia article as there is in a tabloid article... so points to both Jimmy and otmshank, I say!

References section is your friend.

[dale_grass]

Hell, there isn't even any verification of the blooper happening in the first place. (Pssst! The evidence is that the gaffe is edited from the show.)

Pssst!  There was a studio full of witnesses.

[Vahan_Nisanian]

If Trebek retires, they could always get this guy:

http://starsmedia.ign.com/stars/image/article/855/855738/will-ferrell-20080228035451742.jpg